Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08), Amman, Jordan, May 27-29, 2008

DESIGN AND COMPARISON OF STATE FEEDBACK WITH PRECOMPENSATOR AND
H-INFINITY CONTROLLERES FOR MIMO CIVIL AIRCRAFT MODEL

Iraj Hasanzadeh , IEEE member Ghasem Alizadeh Reza Dalayimilan

University of Tabriz University of Tabriz University of Tabriz
Faculty of Electrical and Faculty of Electrical and Faculty of Electrical and
Computer Engineering Computer Engineering Computer Engineering
P.C. 5166616471, Tabriz, Iran P.C. 5166616471, Tabriz, Iran P.C. 5166616471, Tabriz, Iran
izadeh@tabrizu.ac.ir Alizadeh@tabrizu.ac.ir dalayimilan.reza@gmail.com

ABSTRACT the closed-loop system. In [3] two robust controllers (H-infinity
and LQG/LTR) for a multivariable vertical short take-off and
In this paper we design and compare two modern controllers for a landing(VSTOL) aircraft system are designed and compared and
MIMO civil aircraft model; first we design state feedback with Comparison of the two controllers show that Output robustness of
precompensator controller so the unstable open loop system tracks both controllers is good but H-infinity controller has poor input
reference input truly. Then, H-infinity method is utilized to design stability margin. In [4] a simplified parameterization of all H∞
the controller using appropriate weighting functions. The static state-feedback controllers in terms of a single algebraic
objective of the controller is to achieve a good performance along
Riccati equation and a free parameter matrix is presented, the
with superior robustness. Simulation results show that in terms of technique is used to design an H∞ lateral–directional command
transient response, H-infinity is faster than state feedback with augmentation system for the F-16 aircraft. In [5] the selection of
precompensator method. Furthermore control energy of the H-infinity weighting functions for general practical applications is
proposed method is less than state feedback with precomensator investigated and real-time experimental results are presented for
method. Robustness analysis shows that H-infinity method is the roll-angle control of a laboratory-scale physical model a
more robust than state feedback with precompensator. Hence, H- vertical take-off aircraft.
infinity has superiority over state feedback approach in terms of
performance and robustness.

2. STATE FEEDBACK WITH PRECOPMENSATOR
1. INTRODUCTION

State feedback is an important classic control design method;
its main useful property is placing system closed loop poles in left Consider an aircraft system with the following state space
half s-plane and H-infinity is a useful robust control design equations:
method that is widely used in the control system design. In [2]
Based on an aircraft linear model, linear matrix inequality (LMI) x (t ) = Ax (t ) + Bu (t )
formulation of the problem and convex programming are used to (1)
y (t ) = Cx (t )
search for a state feedback controller that achieves the design
objectives. This state feedback design is then realized
simultaneously by a controller that is based on fast output Matrixes A, B and C are:
sampling. First, the LMI control toolbox is used to design a robust
state feedback gain. This state feedback gain is then  −.869 0 −1 .039 
approximately realized by fast output sampling. −4.424 −1.184 .335 0 
A=
2.148 −.021 −.228 0 
In [8] several propulsion systems of air cushion vehicles are
introduced, and a state feedback control law for trajectory control  0 
of an air cushion vehicle is proposed. In [6] a state feedback  1 0 0 
design in two-time-scale systems is presented by a unified (2)
approach, which adopts spl delta/ (delta) operators. The discrete  .0223 0 
system given is converted to a unified system and is decomposed  .547 2.12 1 0 0 0
B=  , C=
into the slow and fast subsystems. In [1] synthesis of non-fragile −1.169 .065 0 0 0 1
or resilient regulators for linear systems was done. The general  0 
framework for fragility is described using state-space  0 
methodologies and the LQ-H-sub2-static state-feedback case is
examined in detail. In [7] a neural optimal controller for nonlinear That state vector is: x = [β p r φ ] ,in which β is sideslip
slew maneuver of flexible spacecraft has been designed using
state feedback, the benchmark problem is taken as an example to angle, p and r are roll and yaw rates respectively and φ is roll
show how controller gain variations can affect the performance of angle. Control inputs are rudder and aileron deflection:

978-1-4244-2034-6/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE.

t →∞ (3) Open loop response of system is shown in figure 1 and we can see that the open loop system is unstable.2 (a) Taking u a = u (∞) + Kx (∞) we have: u (t ) = −Kx (t ) + u a (11) u a is a constant value that should be added to feedback control law for tracking . In this paper we want the output roll angle φ track a step input and that output sideslip β be zero.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 u (t ) − u (∞) = −K [x (t ) − x (∞)] (10) Time(sec) Figure.6 0. Amman.8 Then x (t ) = ( A − BK ) x (t ) is stable so lim x (t ) = 0 and t →∞ 0. Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08). it is clear that good tracking achieved. Jordan. after some calculations and simplification we can derive : ua = [−C ( A − BK )−1 B]−1 R (12) . rise time 0 = Ax (∞ ) + Bu (t ) and maximum control energy are shown in Table 1.open loop system response y (t ) = y (t ) − R System outputs in state feedback with precompensator Then we design the state feedback so that the system (6) is stable 1. Settling time.4 lim y (t ) = lim [ y (t ) − R ] = 0 (9) t →∞ t →∞ 0. Simulation results with step In other words: input by state feedback with precompensator are shown in figure 2. May 27-29.2 output beta output beta 1 u (t ) = − K x (t ) (8) System outputs 0. 0 For specifying control signal from (8) we have -0. 2008 u = [δ r δa ] and control outputs are sideslip and roll Then angles: y = [β φ] . u (t ) = − Kx (t ) + [−C ( A − BK )−1 B]−1 R (13) We want to design a state feedback controller that stables the closed loop system so that we have tracking for input reference R: Where K is the state feedback matrix and −C ( A − BK )−1 is the lim y (t ) = R precompensator matrix [9]. (4) R = y (∞ ) = Cx (∞ ) System open loop respone 70 Combining equations (1) and (4) we have: output beta 60 output phi x (t ) = A[ x (t ) − x(∞)] + B[u (t ) − u(∞)] 50 (5) System outputs y (t ) − R = C[ x(t ) − x(∞ )] 40 These equations can be written as: 30 x (t ) = Ax (t ) + Bu (t ) 20 (6) y (t ) = Cx (t ) 10 That 0 0 10 20 30 40 x ( t ) = x ( t ) − x (∞ ) Time(sec) u ( t ) = u (t ) − u (∞ ) (7) Figure 1.2 This shows that tracking has been done.

Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08). let T denote the Wd = Diag (.2(c) accurately.1) 3. . For acceptable stability margins of multivariable feedback we must have: Figure 2 (a)Closed loop output: sideslip angle β (dashed line) and roll angle φ (solid line) for step input in roll angle φ (b) σ (T ( j ω )) ≤ W 3−1( j ω ) control signals (c) control energies in state feedback with precompensator method In this paper we choose:  .5 1 S(s) = (I + G(s)C(s)))−1 T(s) = L(s)(I +G(s)C(s))−1 0.1.01  energy(J) .7 Figure 3.6 infinity controller and weights 0. Transition state specification and maximum control W 1=  energy in state feedback with precompensator method .  (s + 100)  noise.2. control signal and output play an important role in robust MIMO control system design our problem depend 2 on the norm of sensitivity function S and complementary Control signals sensitivity T that equal to : 1.15. 2008 Control signals in state feeddback with precompensator shown in figure 3 In order to quantify the multivariable stability 3 margins and performance of such systems the singular values of control signal 1 the closed-loop transfer function matrices from reference to each 2.15) .2) closed-loop function from the outside influences to the regulated variables..4 For good disturbance rejection and acceptable performance we 0.63 2.2 0.1 0 −1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 That W 1 ( j ω ) is performance weight and must be chosen Time(sec) Figure. and external variable disturbances) to regulated variables (tracking errors and control input signal).2 (b) Control energies in state feedback with precompensator method 1 0. Amman.5 0.5 control signal 2 of three outputs: error.9 control energy 1 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 Time(sec) Figure.5 0 -0. Jordan. Block diagram of a MIMO feedback system with weights is Wn = Diag (.97 1. May 27-29.34 W 2 = Diag (. Block diagram of a MIMO feedback system with H- 0.8 control energy 2 Control energies 0.01  Table 1. So.3 must have: σ (S ( j ω )) ≤ W1−1 ( j ω ) 0. H-INFINITY METHOD  2500s 2   2 0  (s + 100) W 3=   2500s  2 We know that in control systems performance objective is the  0 2 closed-loop gain from exogenous variables (reference commands.015(s + 1000)  0  s + . In H-infinity method we try to minimize infinity norm of T.015(s + 1000)   0  Maximum control Rise time(sec) Settling time(sec)  s + ..

0. .7 control energy 2 feedback with compensator method.7 H-infinity 1 Control signals 0. Jordan. (a) energy(J) Method Control signals in H-infinity method 2 . Therefore H-infinity method has good robustness against parameter variations but state feedback with precopmensator method is not a robust method against parameter variations. (b) control 0.9 of nominal values randomly and then we Figure 4.63 2. comparing with figure 2 it can be seen that control energy 1 with H-infinity method.2 1. May 27-29. (c) 0. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS 0 -0.6 Figure 4.9 disturbance and noise Simulation results with H-infinity method 0. transition state specification (settling time and rise time) and control energy.4 and roll φ (solid line) for step input in roll angle φ . 0. Amman. which indicate that with 10% parameter variation in state feedback with precopmensatr method.4 precompensator.5 4.5 .1. Comparison of transition state specification and maximum control energy in H-infinity method and state feedback -0. system response become slowly and system settling time and rise time is increased. Simulation results show that with these parameter variations.97 1.6 in Table 2 and show that H-infinity not only obtains faster response than state feedback with compensator method but also 0.5 4. but in H-infinity we see no changes in step response.1 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 0.3 System outputs in H-infinity method 0. time domain figures of state feedback with precompensator are changed but the responses of H-infinity are not changed and is the same as Figure 4.81 1. (b) use the two designed controllers (H-infinity and state feedback with precompensator) for changed model.3 State feedback control signal 1 with control signal 2 precompensator 1.5 control energy in H-infinity is less than state feedback with 0.8 are shown in figure 4.8 Time(sec) System outputs Figure 4. Numerical simulation results are shown in table 3.2 output beta output phi 0. Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08). system response is faster than state 0. Wd and Wn are weights that related to control signal.2 signals (c) control energies in H-infinity method 0 Table 2.1 or . (a)Closed loop outputs: sideslip angle β (dashed line) 0. 2008 Control energies in H-infinity method That W 2 . Numerical comparisons are Control energies 0.4 1. First robustness analysis -1 0 10 20 30 40 In the first robustness analysis we change the aircraft model Time(sec) parameters to 1.2 with precompensator method 0 10 20 30 40 Maximum Rise Settling Comparison Time(sec) control time(sec) time(sec) criteria Figure 4.

4. numerical compactions are shown in table 4.4 output beta 1.5(b) the new model (with disturbance amplitude increased to 15 times). Then H-infinity controller with appropriate weighting functions is designed. Amman. (a)closed loop outputs β (dashed line) and φ (solid Stationary Stationary Stationary H-infinity line) for step input for φ (b) control signals (c) system energies achieved by state feedback with precompensator and with disturbance amplitude increased to 15 times System outputs in state feedback with precompensator and enhanced amplitude disturbance 1.therefore we can say that H-infinity method has good robustness against external disturbance but state feedback with precopmensatr method is not a robust method against external 1 disturbance. Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08). CONCLUTION 1 Designing and comparing of two modern controllers are done in System outputs 0.5 with precompensator 1 Stationary Stationary Stationary H-infinity 0. May 27-29.5 control signal 2 energy(J) Method 2 Control signals Stationary 1.5(a) settling time).97Î2. 2008 Table. Jordan.2 in the presence of intense disturbance the state feedback with precompensator method develops a steady state error while H- 0 0 10 20 30 40 infinity continues to track perfectly Time(sec) (2) From viewpoint of transient state specifications (rise time and Figure .2.6 State feedback 1. Second robustness analysis -0. Control energies in state fedback with precompensator and with enhanced amplitude disturban With H-infinity controller settling time. rise time and maximum 2. Table.42 error error precompensator Figure 5 (c) Figure 5.5 increased . H-infinity method is quite faster than state feedback with precompensator. first state feedback with precompensator designed so that the open loop unstable system becomes stable with good 0.3Î2.63Î2.5 disturbance amplitude to 15 times) Maximum Rise Settling Comparison control time(sec) time(sec) criteria 0 energy(J) Method 0 5 10 15 20 Time(sec) 25 30 35 40 Steady state Steady state State feedback with .8 this paper.5 0 10 20 30 40 In second robustness analysis we increase disturbance amplitude Time(sec) to 15 times.6 transition and steady state specification. .1 2.5 control energy do not change and control signal and control control energy 1 control energy 2 energy of the system are same to Figure 4 so we don’t repeat them but in state space with precompensator we have steady state error 2 as is shown in Figure 5(a).5 0 4.2 output phi 5. after applying two previous designed controllers to Figure .we can see that control energy in H-infinity wasn't changed but control energy in state feedback with precompensator Control energies 1.4 results show that: (1) In normal conditions both methods track the input decently but 0. 3. First robustness analysis results (10% parameter Control signals in state feedback with precompensator and with enhanced amplitude disturbanc variations) 3 Maximum Rise Settling Comparison control signal 1 control time(sec) time(sec) criteria 2. Second robustness analysis results (increasing 0. simulation 0.

Jadbabale. Allahyar Montazeri. A.2000 [6] K. “Near optimal state feedback design for singularly perturbed systems by unified approach with an aircraft application”. 241-244 .E Sawan. pp. Proceeding of the 5th t International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISM08).. Frank L. p. A.D. 817–827. Famularo.M. “Design and comparison of LQG/LTR and H-infinity controllers for a VSTOL flight control system”. Dorato P. Osuka. “Basics of modern control”. pp. 577–580. 3177-3179. And from two robustness analysis: (4) From both aspects of parameter variations and increase in disturbance amplitude H-infinity method is quite robust and superior to the state feedback with precompensator method.-H.pp.1994 [9] A. Khaki Sedig.pp. “Parameterization of all stabilizing H∞ static state- feedback gains: Application to output-feedback design. 6.1998 [2] Herbert Werner. Alasty. Acta Astronautica. 1597 – 1599.pp. Wu.Abu- Khalaf. V.p. “Robust non-fragile LQ controllers: the static state feedback case”.Mohmmad Reza Jahed Motlagh. M. References [1] D.T. [8] R.R. Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. Nayeri. Proceedings of American Control Conference. 2008 (3) Control energy of H-infinity is lower even though the control signals of two controllers are in the suitable range. Javad Poshtan. C.2007 [4] J. Tilo Meister. Control Engineering Practice 8 . Jordan. Ono. 11090-11011 . K. Amman. Control Engineering Practice . 1998. 292-293. 2004. 2003 . “Systematic H-infinity weighting function selection and its application to the real-time control of a vertical take-off aircraft”. Christian Bohn. May 27-29. K.pp. Xie. Haddad W.pp. H. Hayashi. “Neural optimal control of flexible spacecraft slew maneuver”. T.pp. Abdallah. Shim. 1906-1907. “Trajectory control of an air cushion vehicle”. Gadewadikar. Intelligent Robots and Systems.. 1998 [7] M. L.2007 [5] Jiankun Hu.1999 [3] Jafar Zarei_. Daneshjou. “Robust control of a laboratory aircraft model via fast output sampling”.R. Lewis. M. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ/GI. 305 -307. Kucera. Journal of the Franklin Institute . Automatica” .